Those interested in liturgical matters are sometimes accused of being inappropriately interested in externals when they should be out doing some works of mercy.
Well, probably, since we all fall short on that score.
(And guess what? I’m annoyed at myself for deciding to write about this kind of thing—again…)
The accusation implies that “conservatives” are most guilty on that score, while anyone involved in liturgy for more than five minutes suspects that liturgical “progressives” are just as guilty. And if you’ve been involved for more than two decades, you know it as a fact.
Cardinal Cupich of Chicago lit up Catholic Twitter yesterday with a column telling people that they shouldn’t kneel to receive Communion. His argument is that it is disruptive of the Communion procession and attention-seeking.
Nothing new here. But one does wonder what annoyed pastor put the bug in Cupich’s ear on this one when, yes, there are more important matters to which he could lend his voice.
Anyway.
The anti-kneeling stance confuses some, but again, those are folks who have not been around as many blocks as others. In short, in this, Cupich is reflecting the liturgical orthodoxy that became standard in the US by the 1980s: the Communion line as, yes, a procession with people singing as they went up.
It is important to recall that processions have been part of the liturgy from the earliest days of Christian practice. They give us a sensible experience of what it means to be a pilgrim people, helping us keep in mind that we are making our way together to the fullness of the heavenly banquet Christ has prepared for us. This is why we process into the church, process up to bring the gifts, process to receive Holy Communion and process out at the end of Mass to carry the Lord into the world.
This is post-1975 Liturgical Commission 101.
It’s also the orthodoxy that preached that since the Mass was an act of public worship, it wasn’t time to prioritize “private prayer” (how that works–how can you worship, even publicly, without some interior action, but maybe that was actually those folks’ “lived experience” who knows)–so this was the same era which told you you had to keep standing after receiving, keep singing multiple verses of We are many parts, never engage in private prayer, never kneel.
It would even be explained, to those who felt pain at this, who would like to kneel, that well, Christian life is about sacrifice?
There’s a lot to be said about this, and of course, it has been said. First of all: Much listening. So synodality. Such accompaniment.
Such trust of adult Catholics. No infantilizing there, no, none at all. Total respect.
For—can I say it?—lived experience.
And that really is the issue here. Church authorities who are all in on synodality and listening barely listening at all and once again, selectively imposing norms, standards, and policies here but not there, seeing grave threats to unity here but not there and celebrating the glories of diversity here but not there.
But to put Cupich’s contention in context:
What it reflects at its deepest level, I think, is the sense of the liturgical reformers–or at least that took control of the reins in the United States, especially–was that since the Mass is the action of the People of God, the actions of the People of God, actively participating, must embody, in an actively participating way, as a Body, the belief being expressed at that moment in Mass.
So, as I have said for a while, pre-V2, the rubrics micro-managed the clergy and let the laity alone for the most part. Post-V2, the landscape is reversed. The clergy can do whatever, er, these or similar words, sorry, and the laity are micromanaged.
Well, ideally the laity are micromanaged.
As I wrote a couple of years ago:
As I get older and reflect more and more on what I’ve seen and experienced, I can’t help but keep reflecting on the quite unsurprising replacement of the purported V2 goal of “worship as an organic expression of the community’s sensibilities” with the reality of “a few employees and volunteers telling everyone else what to do based on their preferences.”
Why? So, as I said, their actively participating actions reflect the liturgical action of the moment. Because we are the People of God who worship in this building and all of the other stuff is either a distraction or way for spiritual responsibility to be either lazily handed over to the clergy or greedily dominated by clerical action. We are not spectators, we are the actors, and all of our actions mirror the liturgical action of the moment.
My take is different. I say that the messiest scrum of a Mass in the most aesthetically incoherent old church actually does reflect the reality of the People of God. Powerfully.
Yes, the bishop is in charge of the liturgical life of his diocese and can do much to shape it, but the problem comes–and is an important one, I think–when bishops try to impose preferences or options and then justify their actions in a way that implies they are simply bringing us all into line with universal, deeply rooted practice and theology.
When anyone who has eyes to see, and maybe travels a bit, can see the nonsense at work.
First, in most of the world, Communion lines are not orderly processions where everyone is conscious of the vision of making our way together to the Heavenly banquet. They are scrums. They are drizzles. They are not orderly. They are haphazard.
Secondly, what we see if we look around is that, yes, kneeling to receive Communion is fine in other places. I go to a church with a Communion line and loads of people kneel to receive and it is not a big deal at all. Communion rails are inching back. I was at Mass in the Cathedral of a major southern diocese (not mine) recently that used a Communion rail at which most knelt to receive, but some stood, again, no big deal. But that–the kneeling posture itself, while it probably irritates Cupich, is not the focus of his piece. Disrupting the flow and the symbolism of the procession is. But again, looking around, and paying attention and listening, you see how there is diversity in the reception of Communion in the real world, and maybe there’s unity in that diversity, too.
Secondly, scolding and refusing to listen to people’s reasons for wanting to kneel at this moment is not going to help your cause. Especially in an archdiocese where interesting liturgical innovations are tolerated. Don’t be surprised when pointing and laughing ensues.
Finally, contra Cupich, I maintain that in this messiness of individuals approaching the Lord in this way, uncontrolled and free without clerics micromanaging us, we have a more accurate vision of the reality of how we are “making our way together to the Heavenly banquet”. Who envisions the journey of pilgrims towards the heavenly banquet as orderly and uniform? There’s racing, trudging, being dragged, skipping, laughing, stumbling, weeping, and yes, maybe even some on their knees. Perhaps Cardinal Cupich could benefit from thinking of the “Eucharistic procession” less as a post office queue and more as a “vast horde of souls rumbling toward heaven.” *
———
*From Flannery O’Connor’s short story “Revelation”.
(Editor’s note: This essay was posted originally on Charlotte Was Both and is reposted here, in slightly different form, with kind permission of the author.)
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
Cupich is a menace in the Church
Could someone kindly explain this article to me like I’m a 1st grader? I had a tough time following. Is she for or against kneeling for communion? Sorry, it just rambled a lot and I’m not understanding the point. Thanks.
She is strongly critical of Cardinal Cupich’s silly column and stance on kneeling.
Thank you.
I’d say some of this is being facetious, and the message is we have bigger problems like than these trivial inconveniences.
From the Magi to Indiana Jones in the Last Crusade knew of the benefits of kneeling!!
Some leftist cleric is not the boss of me. To the author, I am 70, and have NEVER been in a church which required me to remain standing after communion. If I did enter such a church, I would not care WHAT they wanted. I have for many years attended church while visiting California. That bunch kept standing during the prayers leading up to communion.Unlike in NY where we would be kneeling. They would then kneel after receiving. I on the other hand would kneel BEFORE communion, as I do with my entire congregation in New York. Came back to visit California recently to discover their Bishops conference had a recent change of heart and now THEY TOO kneel for those prayers prior to communion. I think there is too much regional control over issues such as this and SOME matters should be universally observed and not left to the local Bishops discretion.
Back in the day ( prior to V2) , everyone would kneel to receive Communion. A line of people would be kneeling, to be replaced by another communicant when that person had received and rose to leave.It went smoothly and didnt take that long at all. As for here and now, what on earth is the big hurry? We can hardly get though a couple of stanzas of one hymn during communion, what with having 3 EM/s handing out communion with the priest. People spend little enough time praying. So if they have to remain in church an extra 10 minutes due to kneeling, I say, too bad.
Regarding your last paragraph — several years ago, I attended, at my former parish church in Lancaster, PA, a pontifical high Mass. The church was packed; there must have been close to 1000 present. Communion, as it was back in the old pre-Vat II days of my childhood, went more swiftly and efficiently with only two priests distributing it than it did on an average garden-variety Sunday morning with only 250 people present and an entire chorus line of “extraordinary ministers.” True, we received under only one species; nevertheless, everyone knelt and received on the tongue.
Ah, Lancaster, PA, my old stomping grounds! Back in the 70s, most still knelt to receive the Holy Eucharist. Now in my 60s, I still kneel, & I raised my children to do the same. No priest has ever said I can’t, & frankly, if I was ever told I couldn’t, the entire church would know it. One should only follow orders if they’re righteous, & telling someone to stand for Communion – or else – is NOT righteous.
Amen
I know who put the bug in Cupich’s ear. It was another pastor who visited our parish to say a wedding and saw the kneelers stay out for the 5:00 parish Mass. Many people in our parish kneel to receive Jesus.
What the author should have emphasised also is that when we kneel before and after receiving Holy Communion we are showing true reverence to the Real Presence. And Communion on the tongue and not on the hand.
If one looks up the Latin and Greek meanings of “Communion” it is the “intimacy of sharing the body of Christ”. Coming together for that purpose. It doesn’t say you have to stand to receive Holy Communion. When there is an Altar Rail or kneeler i will kneel respectfully and reverently to receive our Lord. If i could kneel physically without those i would!
A close friend of mine, a convert to Catholicism, used to teach at a Catholic school. I don’t remember the particulars, but a special Mass was celebrated at the school, and during the Consecration, he noticed that he was the only one kneeling; everyone else was standing. Later that day, he received a note from the principal, a feminist nun, telling him he needed to learn to kneel “in his heart” — as if the one precluded the other. (Why do I feel that she and Cupich are cut out of the same cloth?) This friend is now a Russian Orthodox priest.
Sorry your friend left the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Ironically, standing is the traditional posture for worship in the Orthodox Church, including during the distribution of Holy Communion.
True, but that’s because they’re “holding fast to the traditions” that have been handed on to them and not denouncing those who practice them as rigid backwardists.
Being attacked for seeking fidelity is a cross. And yet, why do we expect anything different as Catholics? Scandal is never a reason to will myself out of the Church. “Holding fast” is not letting go to fall into disobedience.
Think of Our Lord in Gethsemane. “Father, if Thou art willing, remove this cup from Me; nevertheless not My will, but Thine, be done.” (Luke 22:44). Schism refuses to do the will of the Father. The Saints are Catholic.
While attending Mass many years ago at my college alma mater’s chapel, I, too, found myself the only one kneeling–on the floor since there were no kneelers. The college president’s wife glared at me. Moreover, the chapel’s decorations interpreted liturgical green as pastel lime, entwined with sugar pink.
Kneel for Communion with God or stand for communion with Cupich. It’s silly season for clericalism in Chicago.
The Mystical Body of Christ is bleeding out, crucified in the Archdiocese of Chicago. Perhaps the next Ordinary will demand the few remaining faithful left standing to receive Our Lord lying down.
Touché
He may have no choice. The “few remaining faithful” may be unable to do anything but lie down.
As Coleen has already stated, kneeling at Communion is a posture of worshipping Jesus Christ, our Savior, our King, and our God.
“His Eminence” Cupich (it’s poetic that “progressive” hierarchs get to have medieval court titles as they get promoted in their “careers”) obviously doesn’t cotton to the notion that these “backward” pew-sitters should defy his authority and kneel before this God they say they believe in.
All members of the pederast and apostate cult esteem and applaud the “prophetic voice” of “His Eminence” Cupich, a “high priest” of “the alternative church of the decapitated-Body-of-Christ.”
A previous bishop of my diocese tried to enforce standing during the Canon and back in one’s seat after receiving with no time for personal prayer. Happily it didn’t last. My knees wouldn’t let me drop down to kneel in the usual modern format, but I’m looking forward to visiting a historic church in Nashville that still has–and uses–its Communion rail.
He’s worried about communion processions and not the fact that most of those Communions are sacrilegious. Typical Modernist.
It is perplexing how Cupich and those who share his views are able to articulate something so offensive and ignorant. How can one conceive of the notion that kneeling is inappropriate in the Church? I find myself utterly astonished; it is beyond my comprehension.
We are all angry at the fruits of the Freemasonic Infiltration of the Divine Institution, it’s Post-Conciliarism which has come to a head in Bergoglioism. The anger needs directing at the cause, not the consequence if this apostasy is to be redressed and Catholicism restored in Rome.
If the Mass is truly a Sacrifice, a re-presentation of Calvary, who would deny a person the posture of kneeling in front of the raised body and blood of their Savior, reflecting in abject sorrow their sins that put Him there? Perhaps the problem isn’t with Cupich but with those who attend the Novus Ordo, i.e. the Mass of the Last Supper as it is known, a mass purposefully created to diminish/deny the sense of a sacrifice to appease ecumenism, and not the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass as the Vetus Ordo is known.
His Emminence is more ecclesiastical hooligan than shepherd of the flock. While in South Dakota, he notoriously locked a parish just prior to the Easter Triduum for the offense of their Masses being of the Latin sort. A certain parish in another of his former dioceses had requested a proposal by a noted church architect to restore it to its full glory prior to a horrendous early 70s wreckovation (murals whitewashed, marble side altars smashed, altar rails ripped out, all replaced by a concrete cube topped by a concrete chandelier), to which he responded “it’s too triumphalist” and directed that it be massively wattered down. He also told at least one priest that asked for permission to offer the old Mass that he was (laughably) going test him on his Latin pronunciations before considering permitting the old Mass, which never happened ultimately. He was famous for his ‘eccumenical tenebrae’ Masses that featured the requisite lady pastors.
While in Chicago, he suspended a priest (the superior if Im not mistaken) of St. John Cantius, he ran the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest out of town for the offense of building a thriving traditional parish in the middle of a poor urban neighborhood, all the while tolerating or encouraging perhaps the obscenities of Fr. Pleger, and overseeing a liturgical culture that saw a whole host outrageous behaviors by priests in Masses livestreamed to anyone watching during the covid era, for example, the Mass dismissal with the guitar where the priest said something like “let us rock with you while you roll with us” comes to mind.
Obedience is a virtue, but when churchmen issue directives that are patently harmful to the faith and destructive to the Church, illegal orders have to be recognized. At some point, the faithful need to tell these leftist boomer bishops that they are doing things that are above their authority (ultra vires) and to go pound sand. Can a person who manifests so much hostility to the traditions of the Church prior to the 2VC be an actual Catholic?
No matter what the writer believes or supports, the Cardinal action needs to be reversed or at minimum loudly protested. There is a saying, unlawful orders do not/should not be obeyed. Discipline is important however, in this case, any priest, religious, faithful parishioner should disobey if they want to kneel to receive the Eucharist. What is next, do not take Jesus on the tongue (because it is unhealthy)… wait for it… Disobedience of this or any prelate for righteousness, for Truth is and should be your/our guide. Cupich and too many other like him in the USA and world are diluting the Mass and failing us.
The Church in Wyoming is suffering under a protege and clone of Cupich. All forms of reverence are suspect and many are prohibited. South in Colorado reverence is encouraged.
Yes, he actually published a piece on his blog saying that there was something wrong with people that worship God by kneeling. He takes gaslighting to new heights.
I can’t kneel due to knee surgery–I was told my orthopedic surgeon to never kneel. When I converted to Catholicism in 2004, I tried to kneel for Holy Communion, but it hurt so badly that I couldn’t think about Jesus because of the pain in my knee–all I could think about was that I was disobeying the good surgeon who had performed my knee replacement. I don’t consider myself less reverent because I must stand (or sit) to receive Holy Communion. I’m sure that most Catholics who don’t kneel don’t consider themselves less reverent. As for receiving on the tongue–I don’t feel comfortable with that. To me, sticking out my tongue makes me feel self-conscious and more aware of myself than Jesus. I have no problem with others kneeling and/or receiving Our Lord Jesus on the tongue. I think Catholics should rejoice when other Catholics receive Jesus in Holy Communion on the tongue, in the hand, kneeling, standing, or for those who can do neither, sitting.
To Mary’s comment above – I sympathize. I think Welborn is a bit of an acquired taste. She does ramble, as you put it, and I think she assumes that you know where she is coming from (which you will if you read her more).
More parishes in my diocese are putting out kneelers so that the faithful can kneel in a reverent posture to receive Our Blessed Lord. During the week, we use the front pew as we do not have a Communion Rail. In the past I have attended parishes where everyone had to stand to receive and stand when returning to their seats as a ‘community’. Ridiculous! Are we at Mass to worship God or to concentrate on each other. I will kneel even if there is no kneeler although since I hurt my knees, it is not so easy. And I will receive on the tongue as I have for the last decades. Period. This Cardinal does not have authority to demand the standing as it has been approved to use either posture.
This is virtue signaling by Cardinal Supich as he knows a conclave is near and hopes his antics draw the attention of the other progressive cardinals. He is trying to build influence into his corner in hopes of being elected Pope. Blech!
Cardinal Cupich says “the norm established by [the] Holy See for the universal Church and approved by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is for the faithful to process together as an expression of their coming forward as the body of Christ and to receive holy Communion standing.” But this isn’t the whole Truth. His omission is glaring!
The current norm for the US in the GIRM states:
“The norm established for the Dioceses of the United States of America is that Holy Communion is to be received standing, UNLESS an individual member of the faithful wishes to receive Communion while kneeling (Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum, 25 March 2004, no. 91)” (emphasis added).
By omitting the “unless,” Cardinal Cupich suggests that postures other than standing are not approved. That is incorrect. The current norm specifically, explicitly allows kneeling for those individual members of the faithful who wish to kneel.
Why would he try to deceive people in this way? It is up to each communicant to chose his or her posture and also up to the communicant to receive on the hand or on the tongue. He knows this. Is he trying to dupe the faithful? Or just assuming everyone was poorly catechized so they would blindly follow?
More bovine effusion out of Chicago. 🤮
Reading the various comments on this article, it seems to me that people are confused as to what the central issue being addressed is. It is not about receiving Communion in the hand or on the tongue. It is about the posture of standing versus kneeling.
From the Early Church times, Christians regarded standing as the posture of the Resurrection. (Only pagans knelt before their idols.) Praying while standing was and is seen as praying acknowledging the Resurrection. The writings of the Early Church Fathers testify to this. The Vatican (GIRM) has implied this.
This understanding is still with us at Mass. Which is why we stand during the Gospel because the Gospel is always proclaimed in the midst of the Resurrection. (This includes the ‘Our Father’ which is part of the Gospels.) Standing during the Creed fortifies our profession and belief in the Resurrection. We stand for the Mass Propers, which again is prayed in the midst of the Resurrection. The Communion Procession takes a unique place as it represents our personal and communal procession through life, culminating in the ‘Communion’ with the Resurrected Lord.
Kneeling as a liturgical posture became the norm only in the second millennium and pews were introduced in churches. (The Eastern Orthodox side of our family still maintains the posture of standing during the entire Divine Liturgy – sometimes for two hours!) Reflecting the political and social environs of the times, kneeling took on a posture of obedience, humility and subsequently adoration. There is nothing wrong with that. However, liturgy, as the name implies, is the work of the (resurrected and unified) people. We already express this unity in our said-aloud prayers and responses, speaking in rhythm as though with one voice. Liturgical posture should also have that same dynamic.
The directives to stand for the reception of Communion is not a matter of progressive or conservative, or reverence or irreverence. (One can be any of those in any posture.) It implies that when one comes up for Communion, there is already a disposition of humility and a metanoia of heart. Posturally done in sync fully expresses that we are people of one Faith united by one Baptism.
BTW., people who think that they are not worthy to receive Communion in the hand and therefore should receive only on the tongue, should be reminded that there are more sins committed with the tongue than with the hand!
Regarding your last statement, it’s not whether one is “worthy” to receive the Eucharist in the hand, that’s not the issue. For me, & many others I know, the idea is that the priest’s hands are “consecrated” to dispense the Body of Christ, whereas mine are not properly consecrated. Therefore direct ingestion of the Body of Christ is preferable. The sins committed with either the hand or the tongue do not enter into the discussion, since of course, one must be free of mortal sin in order to receive.
There are no authoritative directives to stand to receive Holy Communion. The Vatican has repeatedly asserted, specifically, the right of Catholics to receive kneeling and on the tongue in the Latin Rites.
If one can be reverent, humble, and converting one’s heart in any posture, surely one can also be unified in any posture. Since kneeling is the normative posture for Holy Communion in the Latin Church, and standing the exception, we could even have the sign of reverence, humility, conversion of heart, and unity – if everyone who could were to kneel.